Trump vs Pelosi and Schumer

#726
#726
luthervol said:
Why would that make me like Trump when he represents everything Alinsky was evidently against? They're polar opposites.
Click to expand...

Soupy, you really would love Alinsky. Hillary, Obama, Bernie go by his playbook and they're heroes. Trump does it and he's the most despicable man ever. You really do have that fluid, Machiavellian, "ends justify the means" ethic down pat. The only ethic is the outcome you want.

As you advertise how despicable Trump is, you then signal how much you suck as a barometer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DC_Vol, Carl Pickens, ajvol01 and 1 other person
#727
#727
Orange_Crush said:
..


So, when Luther calls trump "the worst of the worst" and in a class by himself for lying more than Hillary/Obama/Sanders, he's not actually making that argument. When Trump lies to further his agenda (accomplish his ends), he's not actually being immoral or unethical in lying. He's actually performing a positive ideal from the leftist perspective. What they are complaining about is that Trump is doing what the left teach/do, but apparently doing it more, better, or more transparently.

The left just has to immediately call it unethical because it's an enemy success.

The radical left doesn't have an ethic like normal people do. To them, you're unethical for having a different end in mind, and you're evil if you try to get in the way of their ends. Anything they do to stop you is ethical and anything you do to further your agenda is evil.
Click to expand...


Orange_Crush said:
Then you should like Trump. He's playing Alinsky's playbook beautifully--he's just using it against the leftists.
Click to expand...



luthervol said:
Why would that make me like Trump when he represents everything Alinsky was evidently against? They're polar opposites.
Click to expand...

Anyone every wonder how Soupy makes me look so smart? Like a mind reader or time traveler?

Get Soupy now? His ethic isn't about actions, what one does. It's about whether you agree with his end goals. That's why he can on one hand try to convince us that the ends justify the means and mock me for saying that lying is actually immoral and without excuse. Then call trump the most evil man in the world for lying so much.

He can post that he likes Alinsky. He can support it when Hillary, Bernie and Obama go by his rules and principles--even teaching others to do it. But Trump is still evil and in a class by himself for going rule by rule to do the same things for a different objective.

So, everyone just recognize Soupy's amoral foundation. When he says that Trump is evil, he's actually just saying that Trump has a different objective than he does, so Trump must be attacked.

It's Alinsky's Rule number 5. Luther knows it and has used it to the bone--maybe not because he'd ever heard of Alinsky, but because he adores the people who have.

Well, most of them anyway.

Take care Soupy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood and AirVol
#731
#731
Orange_Crush said:
Anyone every wonder how Soupy makes me look so smart? Like a mind reader or time traveler?

Get Soupy now? His ethic isn't about actions, what one does. It's about whether you agree with his end goals. That's why he can on one hand try to convince us that the ends justify the means and mock me for saying that lying is actually immoral and without excuse. Then call trump the most evil man in the world for lying so much.

He can post that he likes Alinsky. He can support it when Hillary, Bernie and Obama go by his rules and principles--even teaching others to do it. But Trump is still evil and in a class by himself for going rule by rule to do the same things for a different objective.

So, everyone just recognize Soupy's amoral foundation. When he says that Trump is evil, he's actually just saying that Trump has a different objective than he does, so Trump must be attacked.

It's Alinsky's Rule number 5. Luther knows it and has used it to the bone--maybe not because he'd ever heard of Alinsky, but because he adores the people who have.

Well, most of them anyway.

Take care Soupy.
Click to expand...
2d - OC is obsessing again.
I'm still feeling the good will of the season so I'm going to try and not fully engage.
All people lie......all people are not equally dishonest.
All lies are "bad".....all lies are not equally bad.
Lying to your child by telling them their school picture looks great when in fact it really sucks, is not the same as lying to your child by telling them their class picture sucks when in fact it is really great.

Anyone existing within a 3rd dimension and outside of a concrete, black and white world can clearly see and acknowledge the difference. That's why 2d-OConcrete cannot.
 
#732
#732
luthervol said:
2d - OC is obsessing again.
I'm still feeling the good will of the season so I'm going to try and not fully engage.
All people lie......all people are not equally dishonest.
All lies are "bad".....all lies are not equally bad.
Lying to your child by telling them their school picture looks great when in fact it really sucks, is not the same as lying to your child by telling them their class picture sucks when in fact it is really great.

Anyone existing within a 3rd dimension and outside of a concrete, black and white world can clearly see and acknowledge the difference. That's why 2d-OConcrete cannot.
Click to expand...


Keep trying to divert, Soupy. Your quotes speak for you. Your ethics are as Soupy as your mushy brain. You say "all lies are bad" having mocked me for saying that all lies are always immoral. You've spent dozens of posts trying to convince us that lying can be justified if the ends justify it, and now you expect us to believe anything you say.

You can't have it that way, Soupy. Keep trying to hide behind illogical and undefined "altered-dimensional unset concrete". The good thing is that few on here are as soupy and immune to reason as you are.

Have a good day in your altered dimension, Soupy. Maybe one day your foundation will set and you won't be so out of plumb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AirVol, Orangeslice13 and Obsessed
#733
#733
luthervol said:
2d - OC is obsessing again.
I'm still feeling the good will of the season so I'm going to try and not fully engage.
Click to expand...

Oh, and we've all seen that you never fully engage. You hide behind fallacious insults and references that you never actually take time to rationally establish like x-y axis and ill-conceived fluid relativity.
 
#734
#734
Orange_Crush said:
Oh, and we've all seen that you never fully engage. You hide behind fallacious insults and references that you never actually take time to rationally establish like x-y axis and ill-conceived fluid relativity.
Click to expand...
Our insult ratio is 1 : 5.
How about you engage.
Are all lies equally bad?
Do all people lie?
Are all people equally dishonest?

Three specific questions. It's not that hard. I always ask for you to ask a specific question; a task with which you seem to struggle mightily.
 
#735
#735
Orange_Crush said:
Oh, and we've all seen that you never fully engage. You hide behind fallacious insults and references that you never actually take time to rationally establish like x-y axis and ill-conceived fluid relativity.
Click to expand...

You need to get laid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#738
#738
luthervol said:
Our insult ratio is 1 : 5.
How about you engage.
Are all lies equally bad?
Do all people lie?
Are all people equally dishonest?

Three specific questions. It's not that hard. I always ask for you to ask a specific question; a task with which you seem to struggle mightily.
Click to expand...

Per the discussion you are referring to, I asked you specific questions that you ignored and claimed didn't exist. It was more of your ends-justified lies, I guess.

I'll answer your questions, but first point out that you are distracting from my points by asking.

Yes. (If by bad, you mean "immoral")
Yes.
Probably not. I suspect that I lie far less than you do since you profess that lies are justified by their ends and I believe them to be truly immoral and actually want to live a moral life.

Now, with those out of the way, you sidestepped my points.

But now you seem willing to engage in the points I asked about in the other thread that you ran from.

If lies can be justified by their ends (your claims) and Trump lies for his desired ends, how can his lies be immoral by your philosophy and him supposedly doing it more often make him more despicable? When you call him "despicable" "more evil", etc, are you not actually just attacking him for having different ends in mind than you? Are you actually making a moral accusation or just attacking him for having a different political ideal than you?

Amounts and frequency aside, when you support Obama, Clinton. Sanders and Alinsky when they apply the Rules for Radicals for liberal benefit, yet call Trump despicable for applying the rules for conservative benefit, does it not prove that your attacks are actually political as opposed to moral? If those rules are good when your people do it, it sounds as though you're just attacking Trump for doing them better, more frequently, or with more transparency.

I can't impress this enough, Soupy. When you established your philosophy that the ends justify the means, you lost all rights to a moral argument since Trump can be justified by his means. You are welcome to say that you disagree with his desired outcome, but you've lost the ability to have a true moral discussion (with that including the definition of comparing one as better than the other).

When you clai that ends are justified by means and morality is relative, when you say he is "evil", "more evil" etc, your intellectually honest vocabulary should instead be "I disagree with him and would prefer a different outcome than he does."

When you professed a relative/social morality, you lost the ability to have an intellectually honest accusation per comparative "better/worse" moral accusation. You are relegated to a "mine/yours" preference.

The interesting thing is that you accuse me of not seeing the gradient or understanding your relative universe, yet I seem to understand it much better and describe it in more honesty than you do.

It's no wonder you ignored the points and questions and hide behind ill-defined soupy foundations from alternate dimensions because you ghave away any foundation in this one.
 
#740
#740
1972 Grad said:
You just make it look easy. Professionals can do that, and professionals get paid.
Click to expand...

I suppose it's a gift since I'm not even trying. Personally, I think people use that as a hedge against not having to admit I'm right but still feel the need to weigh in.
 
#743
#743
Orange_Crush said:
Per the discussion you are referring to, I asked you specific questions that you ignored and claimed didn't exist. It was more of your ends-justified lies, I guess.

I'll answer your questions, but first point out that you are distracting from my points by asking.

Yes. (If by bad, you mean "immoral")
Yes.
Probably not. I suspect that I lie far less than you do since you profess that lies are justified by their ends and I believe them to be truly immoral and actually want to live a moral life.

Now, with those out of the way, you sidestepped my points.

But now you seem willing to engage in the points I asked about in the other thread that you ran from.

If lies can be justified by their ends (your claims) and Trump lies for his desired ends, how can his lies be immoral by your philosophy and him supposedly doing it more often make him more despicable? When you call him "despicable" "more evil", etc, are you not actually just attacking him for having different ends in mind than you? Are you actually making a moral accusation or just attacking him for having a different political ideal than you?

Amounts and frequency aside, when you support Obama, Clinton. Sanders and Alinsky when they apply the Rules for Radicals for liberal benefit, yet call Trump despicable for applying the rules for conservative benefit, does it not prove that your attacks are actually political as opposed to moral? If those rules are good when your people do it, it sounds as though you're just attacking Trump for doing them better, more frequently, or with more transparency.

I can't impress this enough, Soupy. When you established your philosophy that the ends justify the means, you lost all rights to a moral argument since Trump can be justified by his means. You are welcome to say that you disagree with his desired outcome, but you've lost the ability to have a true moral discussion (with that including the definition of comparing one as better than the other).

When you clai that ends are justified by means and morality is relative, when you say he is "evil", "more evil" etc, your intellectually honest vocabulary should instead be "I disagree with him and would prefer a different outcome than he does."

When you professed a relative/social morality, you lost the ability to have an intellectually honest accusation per comparative "better/worse" moral accusation. You are relegated to a "mine/yours" preference.

The interesting thing is that you accuse me of not seeing the gradient or understanding your relative universe, yet I seem to understand it much better and describe it in more honesty than you do.

It's no wonder you ignored the points and questions and hide behind ill-defined soupy foundations from alternate dimensions because you ghave away any foundation in this one.
Click to expand...
We disagree from the start. You think all lies are equally bad and I think that is absolutely ridiculous.
Telling your 4 year old that Santa brings presents and telling your wife that you were working late when you were actually in a hotel room with your secretary are not equal lies. The intent behind the lie has great significance.
We agree on question two.....all people lie.
We agree on question three....all people are not equally dishonest even though we acknowledge that all people lie. (Trump is more dishonest than preceding presidents)

Now we have a start.
Trump's lies are more immoral because his ends are more immoral.
Trump is more despicable and more evil because his ends are more despicable and more evil.
My attacks on Trump are political and moral interwoven.
Trump's political stances are much more palatable when held by a less despicable human and implemented in a less despicable way.
I can't impress this enough 2d-OC (orange concrete). Bashing someone's head in with a brick to stop them from raping a child is far different from bashing someone's head in with a brick because they are black or because you want their watch.
Lying to protect someone's feelings is different than lying to hurt someone's feelings.
Telling your child they played a good game when in reality they really didn't is far different than telling your child they played horribly when in fact they actually played well.
Morality is relative.
Growing up as a child and attending an extremely fundamental church, we were taught that mixed swimming, dancing, playing cards in the house, women with pierced ears, and rolling skating were all immoral. No one who is still part of that church believes those things immoral today.
A woman showing her knee use to be immoral, or at least many felt that way.
Stores opening on Sunday use to be immoral, or at least many felt that way.
Going to a store on Sunday use to be immoral, or at least many felt that way.
It's all relative.
 
#744
#744
luthervol said:
We disagree from the start. You think all lies are equally bad and I think that is absolutely ridiculous.
Telling your 4 year old that Santa brings presents and telling your wife that you were working late when you were actually in a hotel room with your secretary are not equal lies. The intent behind the lie has great significance.
We agree on question two.....all people lie.
We agree on question three....all people are not equally dishonest even though we acknowledge that all people lie. (Trump is more dishonest than preceding presidents)
Click to expand...

Youn remember when we had that conversation and you agreed that we would use Biblical morality? Yah. I'm still waiting for your seminary thesis.

My response is based on an appeal to an objective standard, unlike yours, which is an appeal to yourself.

luthervol said:
Now we have a start.
Click to expand...

No, you've reached your end.

luthervol said:
Trump's lies are more immoral because his ends are more immoral.
Click to expand...

Based on what standard? You need to establish that.

luthervol said:
Trump is more despicable and more evil because his ends are more despicable and more evil.
Click to expand...

Based on what standard? You need to establish that.

luthervol said:
My attacks on Trump are political and moral interwoven.
Click to expand...

What morality? What standard? You never get around to establishing that. What you're hiding from everyone by that omission is thefact that you're agreeing with my criticisms, that your attacks aren't moral attacks. They are merely attacks based on preferential disagreement.

I repeat... What standard of morality are you judging Trump on. Once you've answered you will have admitted why you're a hypocrite to attack Trump for doing what your heroes do.

luthervol said:
Trump's political stances are much more palatable when held by a less despicable human and implemented in a less despicable way.
I can't impress this enough 2d-OC (orange concrete). Bashing someone's head in with a brick to stop them from raping a child is far different from bashing someone's head in with a brick because they are black or because you want their watch.
Lying to protect someone's feelings is different than lying to hurt someone's feelings.
Telling your child they played a good game when in reality they really didn't is far different than telling your child they played horribly when in fact they actually played well.
Morality is relative.
Growing up as a child and attending an extremely fundamental church, we were taught that mixed swimming, dancing, playing cards in the house, women with pierced ears, and rolling skating were all immoral. No one who is still part of that church believes those things immoral today.
A woman showing her knee use to be immoral, or at least many felt that way.
Stores opening on Sunday use to be immoral, or at least many felt that way.
Going to a store on Sunday use to be immoral, or at least many felt that way.
It's all relative.
Click to expand...

You're making a category mistake. You're claiming that people's perception of the objective law is the objective law. You're arguing that people's misinterpretation means the objective law doesn't exist. It's like claiming that math is relative because you can't add.

So, you're agreeing that you've engaged in intellectual dishonesty and I was right. You're not actually saying that Trump is immoral, or actually, objectively wrong. You're just saying that you disagree with him. That your relative opinion is different than his relative opinion. That he's "evil" because his ends are "immoral". Not what he does. What he wants.

But "moral" is relative to opinion. So, you've literally just made the argument that you hate Trump because of his beliefs. He's not immoral because of what he does, but because he disagrees with you.

That was my critique that you denied. Yet now it's the argument you've made.

Do you know what we call hating people over disagreement? Intolerance and bigotry.

You dirty bigot, you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
#745
#745
Orange_Crush said:
Youn remember when we had that conversation and you agreed that we would use Biblical morality? Yah. I'm still waiting for your seminary thesis.

My response is based on an appeal to an objective standard, unlike yours, which is an appeal to yourself.



No, you've reached your end.



Based on what standard? You need to establish that.



Based on what standard? You need to establish that.



What morality? What standard? You never get around to establishing that. What you're hiding from everyone by that omission is thefact that you're agreeing with my criticisms, that your attacks aren't moral attacks. They are merely attacks based on preferential disagreement.

I repeat... What standard of morality are you judging Trump on. Once you've answered you will have admitted why you're a hypocrite to attack Trump for doing what your heroes do.



You're making a category mistake. You're claiming that people's perception of the objective law is the objective law. You're arguing that people's misinterpretation means the objective law doesn't exist. It's like claiming that math is relative because you can't add.

So, you're agreeing that you've engaged in intellectual dishonesty and I was right. You're not actually saying that Trump is immoral, or actually, objectively wrong. You're just saying that you disagree with him. That your relative opinion is different than his relative opinion. That he's "evil" because his ends are "immoral". Not what he does. What he wants.

But "moral" is relative to opinion. So, you've literally just made the argument that you hate Trump because of his beliefs. He's not immoral because of what he does, but because he disagrees with you.

That was my critique that you denied. Yet now it's the argument you've made.

Do you know what we call hating people over disagreement? Intolerance and bigotry.

You dirty bigot, you.
Click to expand...
The standard that said playing cards, dancing, and a woman showing her knee were all immoral and then changed and decided it wasn't. THAT STANDARD!!!!!!
 
#746
#746
luthervol said:
The standard that said playing cards, dancing, and a woman showing her knee were all immoral and then changed and decided it wasn't. THAT STANDARD!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Lots of people add their relative preferences to the objective standard. Like I said, sucking at math doesn't mean math doesn't exist.

Also, we all pay more attention to what you don't acknowledge or respond to than what you do. You're not very good at admissions. You're really good at affirming my criticisms, though. So thank you for that, Soupy.
 
#747
#747
Nice word salad.

Dvcp38aVsAAOrwb.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top